You can use the terms "and" & "or" in your search; "or" phrases are resolved
first, then the "and" phrases. For example, searching for "black hole and
galaxy or universe" will find articles that have the phrase "black hole" in them
and also have either "galaxy" or "universe" in them. Please note that other
search syntax like quote marks, hyphens, etc. are not currently supported.

When you view web pages with matches to your search, the terms you searched for will be highlighted in yellow.

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

With the help of the theory of infinite hierarchical nesting of matter the need for change in the theoretical foundations of the scientific world outlook is derived – in the philosophy; in the logic of thinking; in cosmology; in interrelation of matter levels; in the theory of gravitation; in the analysis of the mass origin; in the theory of relativity; in the theory of elementary particles; in thermodynamics and other fields of knowledge. The possible ways are described of overcoming the difficulties and challenges existing in a number of modern physical theories.

Author Bio

In 1978, after teaching at the Physics Department of the Perm State University, I worked in the laboratory of organic semiconductors of Natural Science Institute. In 2000 – 2003 I was a scientific Researcher of laboratory of Radiospectroscopy at Perm State University. From 1999 to 2009 I wrote five books on physics and philosophy, and a number of articles on the theory of gravitation, the theory of relativity, the theory of infinite nesting of matter.

Does your model have to be infinite? I was delighted to read your excellent essay and followed up the wikiversity link. You will see from my own essay that I have a kinetic based ontological construction with some great similarities, using the concept of hierarchical kinetic nesting consistent with Truth Propositional Logic, applied to dynamic logic (PDL). This basis has been outlined in my last few essays here.

I avoid infinite regression, but did I need to? Few have penetrated mine, but I suspect you will do so. See also my post in the Hutchinson essay.

I show SR derived from QM, and I think we share the right structure for a toe. I look forward to exploring yours and Roberts in further detail.

Thank you for your appreciation of my essay. Many people believe that the infinite nesting of matter is more preferable than the limited number of levels of matter. In philosophy, the same many prefer motion as a more general concept than rest. But in reality, motion and rest, infinity and limitations are opposites and can not exist without each other. Of the rest there is movement, if you look at the situation from a moving frame of reference. The same is in the structure of matter - even if the universe appears limited, outside you can expect a lot of similar universes.

I find in your essay the questions about real diffuse particle 'medium' in Universe, and how is the constant speed of light (CSL) logically explained. About the constancy of speed of light, I want send in a day to Wikiversity the article 'Extended special theory of relativity', where the question be raised.

Does nature recognize fancy mathematics? Seems as tho mass, length and time it may.

My essay is perhaps overly simplified, but addresses the real problem of Physics. Wherein lies "consciousness"? Very murky, but emergentism (growth) and panpsychism (memory are properties suggested that aligns them with probabilities of a 1-D, 2-D, and 3-D geometric world, where sphere and tetrahedron have identical "activities"at any size... See:

emergent property can appear when a number of simple entities (carriers) operate in an environment, forming more complex behaviors of system as a collective. But according to the law of the negation of the negation , some properties of the carriers repeat again at high levels of matter, when the carriers form very big systems. The properties of this systems will similar to properties of the carriers.

Sergey Fedosin

Jeff Baugher wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 19:38 GMT

Hi Sergey,

It will take me some time to digest your essay and the related material on the web but I do have some general questions:

(1) You are postulating the existence of particles that don't seem to be predicted by the standard model of particle physics. How do they relate to that model?

In accordance with the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter (my Essay), nuons are similar at the level of star to the white dwarfs, and nucleons to neutron stars and magnetar. Nuons are the result of evolution of cosmic substance under action of strong gravitation at the level of elementary particles. In Standard Model there is muons that almost the same as nuons. But the difference is their origin: muons are born in decays of pions and strong interactions of particles and unstable or have charge and magnetic moment. But the nuons are stable, they are result of natural evolution of matter and have no charge. In the absence of charge it is difficult to detect them. At LHC or similar collider we see muons. To check the idea of nuons: they are the supposed reason of dark matter, of redshift of remote galaxies, of microwave background, of attenuation of light spectra of supernova star and so on.

I like the idea of similarity between the stellar and the atomic matter levels as well as the denial of the Big Bang.

However, I do not agree with your hypothesis about the absence of black holes. In a multispace reality, they are the fundamental processes through which energy and matter travel from one universe to another. A black hole in an universe may become a white hole in our universe or in another and make it appear like a star, including our Sun, or like Earth or any other cosmic body. Did you know that Earth is expanding, which proves the ongoing expansion of the universe?

Going back to your theory, I agree that the study of nature by using similarities is an appropriate tool. However, I did not understand how you see the structure of praons and nuons. Are they still quantum fields? If not, what else?

For travelling of energy and matter in the Universe black holes are not needed. You can see some arguments about impossibility of black holes in the article Covariant theory of gravitation.

About the expanding of the Earth see the news New Study Shows Earth Is Staying The Same Size. In the framework of the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter, there was found the meaning of the Planck length. It is close to radius of particles (praons) which relate to nucleon in the same way as nucleons relate to neutron star. It is supposed that in neutron as much praons as neutrons in the neutron star.

In the theory, nuons are similar at the level of star to the white dwarfs . Dark matter may consist of the nuons. See more in the article: Fedosin S.G. Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. Galilean Electrodynamics, Spring 2012, Vol. 23, Special Issues No. 1, P. 3 - 13. Nuons and praons are not a quantum fields but real particles with the same properties as compact degenerate substance objects such as white dwarfs and neutron stars.

I agree with you that black holes are useless for travelling of energy and matter in the Universe. If you read again my post you will see that I didn't say that. What I said is that in the hypothesis of a multi-universe reality, black holes are processes through which energy and matter travel from one universe to another. Not in the universe.

> "Our study provides an independent confirmation that the solid Earth is not getting larger at present, within current measurement uncertainties," said Wu.

Yeah... Right! Remember Climategate? These NASA scientists must be friends or just learned from the CRU people. Since they didn't know how to explain that the Earth temperature started to decrease, they "fixed" the data to still show warming. Smart guys, isn't it? Well... until the Climategate. Same thing now with this NASA study. If they admit Earth's expansion, they would need to explain it. But they have no idea. Nobody does inside the concept of a unique space. It is only the black & white holes theory that gives this explanation.

> "Nuons and praons are not a quantum fields but real particles with the same properties as compact degenerate substance objects such as white dwarfs and neutron stars."

I understand the similarity between this two levels of matter, and that they are real particles. But generally real stuff is made out of something. So nuons and praons are real particles made out of what, if they are not made out of quantum fields?

I hope you agree that the matter at the Earth is made of nucleons mostly. The same is true for substance of neutron star. We do not say in the case about quantum fields as a source of the substance. Instead of it we explain big object with the help of small particles. And the same is supposed for any real particles including nuons or praons. All the particles are made again of particles which are much more small.

Sergey Fedosin

Viraj Fernando replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 16:15 GMT

Dear Sergey,

I responded to your comments and queries about my essay

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549 under your post (in my space). I understand you may not find the time to scan all 300 essays to see whether there are posts addressed to you. So I am cutting and pasting my earlier response here. I would like a reply to it.

-------------------------------------

Dear Sergey,

Thanks for the post and for showing the typo. Apart from that the diagrams have lost parts and will have to request FQXi to insert the correct one.

I will address the matters you have raised on an itemized basis.

1. Centrifugal Force. “field energy that has flown into the system …… source of the centrifugal force. Then …. energy of the system must be rise all the time?”

Your argument implies that the exertion of the centrifugal force expends energy continuously and this would require a continuous supply of energy (Aristotlean idea). Well if this is the case, energy of the system will be at a steady level all the time and it will not be a case of a continuous increase of the energy of the system.

2. “your explanation of the cause of slowing down of internal processes for bodies in motion is only an interpretation of motion with the help of Lorentz transformations”.

a) As you know Lorentz transformation (LT) is: x’ = (x- ut)/(1- u2/c2)1/2. The term u in SRT stands for the velocity of the moving frame. There is nothing in my explanation of slowing down of internal process that involves the u-term.

b) Or are you referring to the Lorentz contraction (LC) - x’ = x/(1 – v2/c2)1/2? Here as you know v is the velocity of the particle (or the body or Michelson’s apparatus) and not the moving frame.

c) I hope you realize that the Gamma-factor in LT is entirely different to that in LC?

c) I assume you mean Lorentz contraction. My explanation is certainly not an interpretation of the Lorentz contraction. You seem to forget, that the (LC) was suggested in desperation to find an answer for Michelson’s experiment (MMX), where Lorentz specifically said that the contraction is IN THE DIRECTION OF MOTION. My explanation has not connection to the direction of motion.

d) In Fig. 1C I show that two quantities of energy fuse to form a system by both quantities lose fractions of energy in equal proportions (1- 1/). The slow down is a direct result of this lost fraction of energy. This has no connection to a change of length in the direction of motion (LC).

3. “In their turn the Lorentz transformations are result of axioms of SRT”.

How can that be? Einstein has clearly stated that the two basic axioms of SRT are in contradiction and this gets resolved by POSTULATING Lorentz transformations. Actually LT is the third axiom and nothing more.

4. “But the constancy of light speed is conventional axiom which is the result of spacetime measurements by electromagnetic waves only. In other words if we change spacetime measurements or take another waves and their speed we will find another value of slowing down of internal processes and other effects of relativity”.

The value c in the expressions of natural processes appeared for the first time in Biot-Savart’s law. And Weber and Kohlrausch in 1856 made a measurement of this and they found it to have the SAME VALUE as the speed of light. The value c appears in expressions of interactions of energy not because light plays a role in all these interactions. All energy has the generic formula mc2, and that is why c appears in the expressions of interaction of energy. Since light is also a form of energy it too has the same value c in it. What is unique is that photons is the form of energy which can move with a velocity equal to c. Matter particle’s cannot. Unfortunately my Fig. 1B has not come out properly. Otherwise I could have demonstrated why matter particles cannot reach the velocity c.

5. “In your GDE Transformation there is only transformation of sizes. How about transformation of time?”

This is a very good point which will enable GDE transformation to be verified by experiment. Thanks.

a) Let us take the case of the muon in motion which Feynman talks about (ref 8 of my paper). If one were to measure its displacement, do you agree that it should conform to LT - x’ = (x- ut)/(1- u2/c2)1/2?

b) Then how come the time change is not given by LT of time t’ = t(1- xu/c)/(1- u2/c2)1/2 but by t” =?. As I have shown the time change is proportional to the fraction of energy lost.

d) There will be a small time change in relation to the LT too. Here there is an influx of energy from the field, and increase of a fraction of energy. Accordingly the time of the muon will be

If the particle is in the rest in a frame K` then the speed of the particle V` is zero in the frame K` and we can test properties of the particle using only the speed u of the frame K` relative to laboratory frame K. So we come to Lorentz transformations. If the speed V` is not zero in the K` then there is the rule of speed summation for the speed of particle V in K, the speeds u and V`. Then, what is the speed in your transformation? Is it u or V` ?

We must remember that we are concerned in this discussion about the foundational problems of physics.

When considering the motion of a particle in relation to reference frames, if the INTERACTION BETWEEN THE ENERGY OF THE PARTICLE AND THE ENERGY OF MOTION OF THE OBJECT THAT THE LOCAL REFERENCE FRAME IS ATTACHED to is disregarded, then that itself is a foundational...

We must remember that we are concerned in this discussion about the foundational problems of physics.

When considering the motion of a particle in relation to reference frames, if the INTERACTION BETWEEN THE ENERGY OF THE PARTICLE AND THE ENERGY OF MOTION OF THE OBJECT THAT THE LOCAL REFERENCE FRAME IS ATTACHED to is disregarded, then that itself is a foundational error.

I will explain it:

Newton’s theory was hailed as the ultimate triumph of the Copernican Revolution. Why, it hit the final nail in the coffin of kinematics in physics. Newton in his Principia says that it is to distinguish between apparent motions (kinematics) from true motions (dynamics) that he wrote Principia. “But how we are to obtain the true motions from their causes, effects, and apparent differences, and the converse shall be explained more at large in the following treatise (Principia). FOR TO THIS END I COMPOSED IT.

(Note in Newton’s terminology ‘motion’ = momentum, so the above concerns how to distinguish whether a particle has true momentum or no momentum – false apparent momentum)

An essential foundational concept in Newtonian theory is: “a body, which is moved from a place in motion, also partakes in the motion of its place” (Principia p.9).

For Newton ‘place’ is not an arbitrary reference frame but the local frame, attached to the location where the particle is at rest.

This means when the particle is at rest in K’ (local reference frame of the particle) Even when at rest in K’ it is has a real component of momentum already in it and co-moves with K’ relative to K (local ref frame of K’). When it moves relative to K’ it is has two real components of momentum.

If you read my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

You will find that Einstein was desperately in search of a dynamic explanation for the relativistic phenomena, since the way Newtonian mechanics has developed had come to the end of the road. He indicated that it had come to the point of writing the obituary of Newtonian Mechanics.

Unfortunately, Einstein resurrected kinematics. In this sense he has negated the progressive aspect of Newtonian dynamics, and brought about a counter revolution in intellectual thinking. Einstein has made a grave foundational error to turn the wheel of history of physics back into thinking in terms of kinematic paradigms

When you ask me the questions about velocities relative K and K’ you are asking me those questions from a kinematic basis.

In my essay I have explained how Einstein was trying to find the “Right Way” in terms of generalizing the laws of thermodynamics.

I will follow this up with another article giving the solution without the use of kinematic reference frames.

I do not know why the part I of my reply to you is getting hidden by the system. Pls click 'show replies' under your post to see part I.

Here is part II:

Dear Sergey,

Here is how to see the problem of motion of a particle without the use of the erroneous foundational problem of reference frames and falling into kinematics.

It is by developing an anlogy between thermodynamics and particle mechanics.

------------------

0. The zeroth law of motion is that,

a) In the motion of a particle it occurs by way the fusing on its intrinsic energy Mc2 and the applied energy of motion (pc). The fusion takes place by both quantities of energy losing fractions of energy in equal proportion – thus each quantity of energy gets scaled down by the factor  (gamma).

After this fusion has occurred, the scaled down quantities of energy are: net intrinsic energy Mc2/gamma and net energy of motion pc/gamma = Mvc, where gamma = 1/(1- v2/c2)1/2

b) The converse of the fusion theorem is that when a quantity of energy X is to break up into two parts aX and (1-a) X, the original energy X gets scaled up by a factor ’ (gamma)’ so that the parts become equal to (gamma)’aX and (gamma)’(1-a) X,

1. In a system of particles moving relative to their common centre of mass, the energy of motion of the centre of mass cannot be made use of to make discrete changes in the particles relative to each other.

This is analogous to the first law of thermodynamics.

2. In applying energy of motion (pc/gamma = Mvc) on a particle within a co-moving the system of particles (about their centre of mass), it is impossible to for the particle to acquire a motion of velocity v, relative to the other co-moving particles to the full extent of the net energy (Mvc) applied.

This is analogous to the second law of thermodynamics.

2a. The conversion of the applied net energy Mvc must occur with respect to the energy level of relative to which the motion of the common centre of mass occurs.

Recognizing that energy Mvc also possesses inertia Mv/c2, this energy too must move in common motion with the centre of mass (at velocity u). For this common motion it requires Mvc to break up and dedicate the fraction (Mvc).u/c. Hence the balance energy would be Mvc( 1-u/c). From zeroth law (b) this fission causes the energy of motion to scale-up by the factor gamma’= 1/(1- u2/c2)1/2 at the moment of fission.

Hence the energy that remains for motion relative to the centre of mass is Mvc(1-u/c)/(1-u2/c2)1/2.

Consequently the displacement of the particle relative to another particle (co-moving with the centre of mass) is: x’ = vt(1- u/c)/(1-u2/c2)1/2 --------------(1).

At Newtonian velocities v/c tends to 0, hence x’ tends to(gamma)’vt. Since for a particle moving relative to a lab frame on earth(gamma)’ = 1.000000005, for terrestrial displacements at Newtonian velocities (v/c tends to 0), the scaling up of the displacement due to ’ has gone unnoticed and in practice we have formed the convention

x = vt.-------------(2)

When very accurate measurements are made for particles moving at near light velocities v/c tends to1, the effect of the scaling up also has come to the notice. Then the equation (1) takes the appearance of

Equation (3) is valid only for very fast moving particles. When the velocity of a particle reaches the range 0.5c the results start to significantly deviate from the equation. When it reaches the value of earth’s orbital velocity, the equation (3) breaks down totally.\

Unlike (3) Equation (1) provides accurate results for all velocities between low (Newtonian) velocities to near light velocities. This can be tested by analyzing the results of all the particle accelerator experiments carried out in the last 100 years.

In a) is: After this fusion has occurred, the scaled down quantities of energy are: net intrinsic energy Mc2/gamma and net energy of motion pc/gamma = Mvc, where gamma = 1/(1- v2/c2)1/2.

From the fig. 1B of your essay it is seen that Mc2/gamma = AF , and pc/gamma = Mvc = BF. What we can do with AF and BF more? Why these quantities are important for you? For the physics are important only the quantity AC = gamma Mc2 and p = gamma Mv. The quantities AF and BF are not at the one line and can not be added arithmetically. And with geometrical addition we have AB that is the energy of rest. What is new from here?

In 1. is: < In a system of particles moving relative to their common centre of mass, the energy of motion of the centre of mass cannot be made use of to make discrete changes in the particles relative to each other.> I think it is trivial since the energy of system of particles can not be known without the speed of motion u of the centre of mass. It is a consequence of superposition principle for vectors of velocities: every velocity is a sum of all individual motions velocities of particle.

Your sentence 2 looks like a tautology: when we applying energy of motion (pc/gamma = Mvc) on a particle that particle can not have the speed v. It is very unclear. If we have for the particle Mvc then the speed of particle is v. If the speed of particle is smaller then v in the case the momentum of particle is smaller then p and the particle has no energy pc/gamma = Mvc.

I can not understand how to use in practice your sentence 2a. In physics in the system of particles, if momentum and energy are known for every particle, we can determine total momentum and energy of system and after it mass and velocity of the centre of mass as secondary quantities. For the closed system the total momentum and energy are conserved. Then what does mean Mvc in sentence 2a? Is it for particle or for system of particles?

Sergey Fedosin

Viraj Fernando wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 23:23 GMT

Dear Sergey,

What you refer to AF & BF are actually AD and BD in fig 1B. This confusion is because, unfortunately the diagram has come out incomplete in my submission. And the FQXi does not permit any corrections. Therefore I have attached the corrected version for your reference. Pls look at the Fig. 1B in the attachment. So I correct AF to AD and BF to BD in your passage quoted below:

You wrote: “From the fig. 1B of your essay it is seen that Mc2/gamma = AD , and pc/gamma = Mvc = BD. What we can do with AD and BD more? Why these quantities are important for you?”

AD and BD explain many things:

a) The physical reason for gamma-factors: Has SRT or any other theory accounted for gamma-factor and explained how they appear? If you read my essay, I have explained that it is by losing fractions of energy (1- 1/gamma) of each that they attract and fuse by sharing their energy to overcome their mutual deficiencies.

b) Scaling down of AB to AD explains why internal processes slow down when a particle is in motion. See the explanations of the slow down of a GPS clock when in orbit and the delay in decay time of a muon, when the particles are in motion. There’s no other theory that gives a physical explanation why this happens.

You wrote: “I think it is trivial since the energy of system of particles”.

See my EndNote 7. Einstein says he tried desperately to find a principle in mechanics parallel to first two laws of TD (perpetuum mobile -PM).

Is the first law of TD something trivial? In (1) wrote the law analogical the first law of TD. What it means is that earthlings cannot harness energy from the earth’s orbital motion to do terrestrial work. (This is the impossibility of PM of the ‘first kind’)

You wrote: “Your sentence 2 looks like a tautology: when we applying energy of motion (pc/gamma = Mvc) on a particle that particle can not have the speed v”.

The 2nd law I have written, is the parallel of 2nd law of TD. Please have a look at the last para of page 4 of my essay. I show why not all the available energy Mvc comes to be used for the motion of the particle, just like in Carnot’s cycle where not all the heat energy gets converted into work, There is a fraction of energy that gets usurped from Mvc to have an organic link with the background energy field.

You wrote: “I can not understand how to use in practice your sentence 2a”.

I copy it here “2a. The conversion of the applied net energy Mvc must occur with respect to the energy level of relative to which the motion of the common centre of mass occurs”.

In the Carnot cycle, the last (isothermal) phase occurs with respect to the intensive component of the energy of the background – (Int comp = temperature T2). In this process the fraction of energy S1T2 gets usurped to form an organic link with the background. (S1T2 is the product of the extensive component S1 of energy in action Ea and T2 the intensive component of the energy of the background Eb). Energy left available for conversion to work = S1T1( 1-T2/T1)

Mechanical parallel is Extensive component of the energy in action Mv/c (inertia of energy). Intensive component of the energy of the background is the velocity u of earth’s motion. The fraction usurped to form the organic link with the background is (Mv/c).u. = Ext comp of Ea x Int comp of Eb. Energy left for motion relative to earth = Mvc( 1 – u/c).

(This will also show that c in ‘relativistic expressions’ is not velocity of light per se, but c plays the role of the intensive component of energy Ea).

You wrote: “For the closed system the total momentum and energy are conserved”.

My reply: First see the list of foundational errors I am addressing on p.2 of my essay.

Closed system is a foundational error. Maxwell saw this error. See EndNote 4. I am working with an open system.

You wrote: “Then what does mean Mvc in sentence 2a? Is it for particle or for system of particles?”.

Earth’s motion constitutes the motion of the system of all the particles with their centre of mass. Mvc is the discrete energy that excites one of discrete particle (out of the system of particles) into motion relative to the centre of mass.

With your essay N2 A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc I understand your thesis better now. Some questions there are about AD and BD at fig. 1B. AD is a part of AC and AC can be calculated through AB and BC. AC is relativistic energy and AD is a part of this energy. But in your opinion BD is also important. I think you should take in account DC instead of BD since DC is a part of AC which is the relativistic energy. In this case DC will have physical meaning. And appearance of gamma-factors in special relativity is explained in another way. About muons. Taking the muon lifetime at rest as the laboratory value of 2.22 microsecond, the lifetime of a cosmic ray produced muon traveling at 98% of the speed of light is about five times longer (Wikipedia). In special relativity all the motions are measured with the help of electromagnetic waves. It leads to the fact that energy and momentum have the multiplier in the form of Lorentz factor gamma. It looks like the speed of bodies can not exceed the speed of light. But I am sure that the real speed of cosmic ray muons is about 5 times of speed of light if do not use special relativity. About analogy of mechanics with the first law of Thermodynamics. I think it may be formulated so: Internal motion and interaction of particles in the system, moving in space, does not change the state of motion of the system, the total momentum and the relativistic energy of the system remains constant. The change is possible only in interaction of particles with external particles or background fields. The Earth as a system has energy connected with the motion of Earth in space or with fields in space. These energies may be used by earthlings if and only if they will interact with the entities which are not parts of the Earth. The first law of thermodynamics sounds in another way: a system can not do work eternally on the base of its own internal energy. Also I can not understand why you brake up the energy Mvc with the help of speed u ? The particle speed v is relative to the centre of inertia of system of particles, and the speed u is the speed of system of particles as a whole. These speeds are not correlated with each other. So can you prove that Mvc( 1-u/c) is a physical quantity and has physical meanings?

Sergey Fedosin

Steve Jedi Dufourny wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 16:26 GMT

Hello Mr Fedosin,

I see that you have worked about organic semiconductors. It seems very interesting.

Silicium or carbon. The carbon is indeed relevant considering of course the primorial soup. The CH4 , H2C2 ...in fact the Hydrogen is fascinating.The capacity of the system of uniqueness and its finite number becomes very relevant. In fact the combinations with the bosonic fields become keys with the nrespect of this number of uniqueness. If the C has the organic potential, so the crystal and their geometries become relevant. On the other side, it is intriguing considering the principle of evolution compared with the anthropical principle. That said the entropical evolution considers all the principles, so where are situated the real interpreations of this anthropical principle? it is perhaps a question of universality and its faith.

If the encoding becomes in a kind of organic evolution, it is intriguing considering the possible autonomy. The binar codes and this turn off, turn on encoding, so are intriguing.After all, the C has the same age that all particules in fact.So what is the polarization between these spherical bosonic fields and this gravitation implying mass. The relevances of volumes of spheres ,entangled and with a finite number,for both of systems, bosons and fermions, become very relevant considering the quantization of mass due to evolution and the informations from bosons. The central spheres and the correlations with the singularities are also relevant of course. The word intriguing is a weak word consideringt he artificial intelligence and the potential of polarizations m/hv. My equations help for a better understanding of the rotations of the entangled spheres.It is important to tell that the number is the same for the bosons and the fermions, even the space and its uniqueness is under this rationality. c o and si in my equations are important.Because the 3 motions are considered for the light. The fact that the gravity turns in the other sense than light is essential for the polarity of evolution. It permits to better encircle the linearity of hv and the stability of mass. The velocities and the angles of spheres more their volumes, considering the main central sphere like the most important volume with its finite serie of decreasing of volumes, become keys of understanding for the synchronizations and sortings of "evolutive informations".

The fact that for all system of uniqueness, we have a serie finite, is important. mcosV so is = to a constant for all physical 3d sphere.See that the sphere can have spheres so the link is universal. It is essential considering the entropy and its distribution on the arrow of time. See also that the duration is implied by the rotations of these spheres, so it is relevant also.It exists a force between all spheres, quantic or cosmological. It tells us so an universal relevance for the singularities connected with the singularity, physical, so the main central cosmological sphere.See that the quantic singularities are also relevant for the universal rotation around this central main sphere. If the infinite light creates a physical evolutive sphere and its spheres, so the link is these central main spheres, these central main singularities inside this physicality. We cannot forget that the infinite light above our walls, does not turn, it turns inside this universal sphere.So the main informations come from this main central sphere, physical in 3D.In my calculations, it does not turn, like the universal sphere.The gauge with light is relevant when the sense is different for hv and m.

The fact that the C and the Si continues to evolve, is intriguing.....

You begin you work with: "Over the past 20 years, both in physics and in philosophy, new results were obtained related to the rapid development of the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter. At the present time this theory claims to be the dominant scientific paradigm, affecting the whole science."

I wonder whether you meant that this theory was the "dominant scientific paradigm" in the community of researchers advocating its ideas (it would then be a tautological statement), or whether you meant "most promising" instead of "dominant", but as stated in your paper it does not appear to be correct. For better or worse, the dominant scientific paradigm in fundamental physics at present appears to be string theory (I am only stating a matter of fact as I understand it, I am not a proponent of string theory).

Then you introduce an unfamiliar term (syncretic logic), giving a reference to a book you wrote in Russian. For those of us who don't know Russian the reference will not be very useful in understanding this concept which seems to play an important role in your theory. Then the next several paragraphs contain references and terms that are unfamiliar to me, and which are usually not explained, except for providing links to some long Wikiversity articles.

All of these factors have made it very difficult for me to understand your ideas. My suggestions would be as follows:

1) When introducing non-standard or unfamiliar terms, I believe it would be better to try to give a concise definition in your paper, perhaps even with an example. This could be done within the body of your paper, or a glossary at the end for easy reference.

2) You have evidently worked on this theory for a long time, and as a result, it seems very familiar to you. You may also be interacting within a community of like-minded individuals who basically agree on the major concepts, and as a result, you may think that the theory better known than it actually is. I had never heard of this theory previously, and the discussion in your paper did not help me understand how it works. It may well be the case that it has some very useful ideas in understanding nature more deeply, but I could not understand enough to be able to tell whether that is the case or not.

3) When making major radical claims, I believe it is absolutely, fundamentally, essentially, critically, vitally important to include new predictions that can be tested by experiment. The more unfamiliar the ideas you present, the more important it is to include new falsifiable predictions. If you don't do this, it becomes just too easy to dismiss your theory as just another crackpot scheme.

I could not tell whether your theory made any new predictions. Remember, explaining patterns that we already know doesn't count, it must be a new prediction of an experiment, the outcome of which is genuinely not yet known. Explaining what we already know is just the minimum for any framework whatsoever just to begin to considered.

Ok, I have attempted to give you frank criticism, not to put you or your theory down or to insult you, but because I have observed certain features which may make it more difficult for your ideas to be disseminated or considered more widely, and want to try to help you recognize these features, and if you are so inclined, to eliminate them. I hope you found my criticism useful.

Thank you for feedback. I suppose that in beginning of the essay it should better to write that the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter try to develop into the dominant scientific paradigm. I agree with you that glossary at the end of essay is very useful. But when the essay was ready its size was more then 25,000 characters, so some part of the text was excluded. It is really impossible give all the predictions of the theory in such small essay. I hope additional information available in the references of the essay may be useful for better understanding of theory.

Sergey Fedosin

Hoang cao Hai replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 01:56 GMT

Dear Sergey

"The current paradigm of physical knowledge is obsolete and is subject to inevitable replacement based on the transition to substantial theoretical models of a deeper level" of you is very reasonable.

Hope you succeed with The Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter as the Source of New Ideas if you really believe it.

Thank you for your considered and thoughtful reaction to my reaction. It is because of your openness to my criticism (which I take as a sign of your integrity) that I have taken the liberty to give additional comments.

It is really too bad that the word limit did not permit a more comprehensive explanation of the building blocks of your ideas. I would like to mention that the 25k word limit applied only to the body of the essay. There are several essays in this contest above this limit which were allowed entry because the excess words were part of the 2 page additional information. Although I cannot speak for FQXi, of course, it is possible that having a glossary or something like that no longer than 2 pages in an appendix might have been acceptable for your essay even in its current form.

Hopefully in future contests you will be able to maximize the possibilities with the given constraints to help the reader better understand your ideas.

As for the predictions, it seems to me that when faced with space limitations, one should prioritize the importance of the predictions to be given and focus just on the ones that have the greatest importance. The criteria for prioritization are of course yours to determine, but some I would consider are:

1) How unexpected would it be if the prediction was confirmed?

2) How likely would it be that the prediction could be explained using current theories (i.e. how well does the result fit in our current paradigm)?

I enjoyed your essay. It seems that each new generation of physicists discovers finer structure than was previously believed to exist, from atoms to nuclei to nucleons to quarks and so on. There's no obvious reason to expect this process to terminate, although it also seems that each generation believes they are near the bottom! In any case, I agree that scale dependence and self-similarity are crucial concepts that have not received the level of attention they deserve. Take care,

In accordance with your essay the general relativity and the standard model of particle physics need to be more clarified and demand some refinement. I agree with you and think we must use now not the pure mathematical models but real physical models. It is the main goal of the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter. From the axiomatic point of view any new theory must have about 5 axioms. But in Standard Model there is about 20 unknown parameters! It seems such theory is more adaptive then physical theory.

Sergey Fedosin

Author Sergey G Fedosin replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 19:00 GMT

Dear Hoang,

The reason for mass of a body in the Le Sage s theory of gravitation is interaction of graviton fluxes with the substance of the body. When the velocity of the body is constant in relation to the reference frame in which the graviton fluxes are isotropic the force of inertia is absent. But the force of inertia appears in acceleration of the body since the action of graviton...

The reason for mass of a body in the Le Sage s theory of gravitation is interaction of graviton fluxes with the substance of the body. When the velocity of the body is constant in relation to the reference frame in which the graviton fluxes are isotropic the force of inertia is absent. But the force of inertia appears in acceleration of the body since the action of graviton fluxes changed. About connection of mass and energy see also the article: The Hamiltonian in covariant theory of gravitation. vixra.org, 22 May 2012.

The mass of Higgs boson is considered about 125 GeV from the proton-antiproton collisions at sqrt(s) = 1.96 TeV. See http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.0449 and http://www-d0.fnal.gov/Run2Physics/WWW/results/higgs.htm. In my opinion W-bosons and Higgs boson are quasiparticles. In the comment No 6 (February 11, 2010, http://serg.fedosin.ru/download/com.pdf) of Comments to the book: Fizicheskie teorii i beskonechnaia vlozhennost’ materii. Perm, 2009, 844 p. ISBN 978-5-9901951-1-0. (in Russian), I found that appearance of W-bosons is a demonstration that substance of collided protons has speed about the value of escape velocity at the surface of proton in the field of strong gravitation. On the other hand it is supposed that the characteristic speed of substance of neutron star is 0.23 c (where c is the speed of light), and in nucleons the characteristic speed is c. Accordingly for praons the characteristic speed is 4.3 c. Praons relate to nucleon in the same way as nucleons relate to neutron star. So if we shall collide protons then it possible the case that their substance speed is equal to the speed 4.3 c of praons. According to calculation the energy of protons in such collision must be more then sqrt(s) = 1.4 TeV. The situation with Higgs boson may be similar to such collision of two neutron star when their substance fly with the speed of light after collision. About weight and force of gravitation see for example Model of Gravitational Interaction in the Concept of Gravitons. Journal of Vectorial Relativity, March 2009, Vol. 4, No. 1, P.1-24.

You describe that interactions of elementary particle do not give black holes (BHs). Thus you conclude that black holes do not exist. But I claim that elementary particles are already BHs without typical gravitational interactions. I also do not claim that elementary particles are the same type of BHs as large holes. (Quantum physics probably change a lot of properties.)

You also claim that enlarged gravitational constant at small distances exists. I claim that this is agains rules of general relativity, and against claims of Duff.

I did not read your articles precisely, are my arguments enough?

Best regards,

Janko Kokosar

p.s. Some time ago I searched theory of strong gravitation as a reference. I do not rememember precisely, do you the only author of this idea?

According to your essay: < But this confirms that the elementary particles are BHs or something very similar to BHs or at least that they are gravitationally built up objects.> I supposed that you understand black holes (BH) in usual way. The idea of strong gravitation is very old. A lot of people try to calculate Strong gravitational constant. With this constant the radius of a particle with the mass of proton is close to radius in the formula for the black hole:

, where

is strong gravitational constant, Mp is proton mass, c is speed of light. But in reality radius of proton Rp is equal to

, and so Rp < R. On the other hand instead of c we must use speed 4.3 c in the formula for the radius of black hole. It is so the speed of light for the proton is the characteristic speed of its matter, as for the neutron star the characteristic speed of its matter is equal to

. See Stellar_constants. Then for the black hole at particle level of matter must be:

. We se that Rp > Rb, and proton is not a black hole, as a neutron star.

Sergey Fedosin

Janko Kokosar replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 12:04 GMT

Dear Sergey

My theory,, (and this) give that electrons are black holes. They are superpositions of Planck's masses and mass zero and they can be calculated. Thus they are not against uncertainty principle. I admit, if Higgs mechanism will be confirmed in CERN, this model will be probably rejected. But in my essay I have also other parts of this theory, which will survive Higgs mechanism.

I do not yet see hope for your theory:

1. You included strong gravitational constant which rejects some benefits given by general relativity. They are, the principle of equivalence, background free spacetime etc.

2. You do not enough include quantum field theory and quantum mechanics, which are base of our world.

3. Where do you obtain 4.3c?

4. I think that idea of strong gravitational constant is to reject contradictions against QM, which arise when black holes are smaller than Plank's mass. Am I correct?

Otherwise, you were very sucessful to read 250 essays. I do not succeded in this. Which essay do you recomend?

1.< You included strong gravitational constant which rejects some benefits given by general relativity. They are, the principle of equivalence, background free spacetime etc.> The general relativity may be changed by Covariant theory of gravitation . In view of it the principle of equivalence, background free spacetime etc. are...

1.< You included strong gravitational constant which rejects some benefits given by general relativity. They are, the principle of equivalence, background free spacetime etc.> The general relativity may be changed by Covariant theory of gravitation . In view of it the principle of equivalence, background free spacetime etc. are not more benefits given by general relativity.

2. < You do not enough include quantum field theory and quantum mechanics, which are base of our world.> The approach of quantum field theory and quantum mechanics is very limited to waves form of calculation in physics and is probabilistic. It is not a common physical approach.

3. < Where do you obtain 4.3c?> From the similarity relation for speeds, see my essay. The characteristic speed of the proton substance is c and its rest (absolute value of total) energy is

where Mp is mass of the proton. For the neutron star we have characteristic speed of substance

and absolute value of its total energy is

where Ms is mass of the star. From here the ratio is c = 4.3 Cs. Accordingly, the speed 4.3c is the characteristic speed for the substance inside of the particles which are inside of proton.

4. < I think that idea of strong gravitational constant is to reject contradictions against QM, which arise when black holes are smaller than Plank's mass. Am I correct?> From the theory it follows that Planck mass is equal to product of proton mass and similarity coefficient in size between star and atomic levels of matter. So the Planck mass is not a mass of a real particle, since there is should be similarity coefficient in mass, not similarity coefficient in size. In view of it strong gravitation do not depend on quantum mechanics and its Planck mass.

I posted the following under Goerge Ellis’ essay giving reference to your essay.

Also this addresses your question to me on Sep.14. You wrote: "Also I can not understand why you brake up the energy Mvc with the help of speed u ? The particle speed v is relative to the centre of inertia of system of particles, and the speed u is the speed of system of particles as a whole. These speeds are not correlated with each other. So can you prove that Mvc( 1-u/c) is a physical quantity and has physical meanings?" (Note: v is the velocity of one particle relative to earth and u the velocity of the earth i.e. velocity of the centre of mass, relative to the next hierachic level).

------------------------------------

SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS – A TOP DOWN CUASATION

Dear Fred and George,

“I am wondering if top-down / bottom-up causation is a duality? Could one exist without the other? I think that is what you are saying or the point you are trying to make”.

‘Top Down’ concept is not something trivial and marginal as the author of the essay thinks. (For instance he thinks the top down causation of the Sun on earth manifests in marginal effects like the tides. Well then lunar tides will have to be considered as 'Bottom Up!!!'). ‘Top down’ concept is far, far deeper. It is one of the basic principles in Nature.

Nature’s processes are a hierarchy of self-similar structures. (Sergey Fedosin brings this out in his essay). If they are a ‘hierarchy’ how is the hierarchic dominance and organic links established between two adjacent levels?.

Here is Newton for you: “And thus Nature will be very conformable to herself and vey simple, performing all the great Motions of heavenly Bodies, by the Attraction of Gravity, which intercedes those Bodies, and almost all the small one of their Particles by some other attractive and repelling Powers which intercede the Particles. …… To tell us that every Species of Things is endow’d with an occult specifick Quality (of Gravity and of magnetick and electrick Attractions and of fermentations) by which it acts and produces Effects, is to TELL US NOTHING: But to derive two or three general Principles of Motion from Phaenomena, and afterwards to tell us how Properties and Actions of all corporeal Things follow from those manifest Principles, would be a VERY GREAT STEP in Philosophy….” (Query 31)

One of those GENERAL PRINCIPLES: The process below forms an organic links with the next higher level in the hierarchy. Or looked at it the other way, the two processes form an interface between the two levels by usurping a fraction of energy from the lower level.

The second law of thermodynamics comes into effect by way of this process of interfacing of the two levels of energy.

Let us look at Carnot’s ideal engine, where not all the heat energy (Q = S1T1) generated gets converted into work. It is found that a fraction Q = S1T2 gets ‘lost’, and what is available for conversion to work is S1(T1 –T2) where T2 is the temperature of the background field. This is why the perpetuum mobile of the second kind is impossible.

Einstein understood that there is a analogical connection between the perpetuum mobile and the Lorentz transformation. (See my essay: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549 )

“The universal principle of the special theory of relativity is contained in the postulate: The laws of physics are invariant with respect to Lorentz transformations, ….. This is a restricting principle for natural laws, comparable to the restricting principle of the non-existence of the perpetuum mobile which underlie thermodynamics” (1, p.57).

Well if there is “an analogical connection”, there has to be a GENERAL PRINCIPLE underlying both processes. Hence Einstein wrote: . “By and by I despaired of the possibility of discovering the true laws by means of constructive efforts based on known facts. The longer and the more despairingly I tried, the more I came to the conviction that only the discovery of a universal formal principle could lead to assured results. The example I saw before me was thermodynamics. The general principle was there given in the theorem: laws of nature are such that it is impossible to construct a perpetuum mobile” (1, p.53).

So what is this GENERAL PRINCIPLE: In general terms, the fraction of energy Q usurped to form the organic link with the background is given by the product of the extensive component Ea of the energy in action and the intensive component Ib of the energy of the background. Thus the fraction of energy forming the organic link with the background

Q = Ea x Ib.

When this general principle is applied to the motion of a particle relative to the background velocity field of the earth’s orbital motion, a similar fraction of energy will be required to form the interface. Lorentz opens his 1904 paper (which is on the ‘Lorentz transformation’) recognises such a process. But the problem was how to account for the gamma-factor. See my paper to find out how the gamma-factors comes into being in equations -.http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

Where dQ is the heat converted to the work dA, S2-S1 is difference of entropy in states 2 and 1, T1 is the temperature of the high temperature reservoir, T2 is the temperature of the low temperature reservoir (background). Here S is extensive (additive) quantity, T is intensive quantity. I think the formula for dQ in the Carnots ideal engine is inapplicable as analogy for deducing of quantity Mvc( 1-u/c) since speed v is measured in the Earth reference frame and speed of the Earth u - in the Sun reference frame, i.e by different observers.

Sergey Fedosin

Jose P. Koshy wrote on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 11:51 GMT

Dear Sergey,

I read your essay, but sorry to say, I could not follow much.Is it a new theory or a new approach entirely developed by you? Are you suggesting that there can be an infinite number of layers if we consider mass of the body as the only criterion? I have developed a new theory 'The finiteness theory'. However in the essay "Incredible foundations", I have not mentioned the details, but only referred to the approach that I used.

One thing that I got interested is the way you calculated the strong gravity.Are you saying that the strong nuclear force is actually gravity at the level of particles? My opinion is that. However, I calculated the strong force constant in a similar war using the force between two electrons when they just touch. This worked out to be 2.78x10^32. The gravitational constant of hydrogen atom that I got is close to the strong gravitational constant you obtained.

In the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter not only mass, but also size of objects are important as the rate of similar processes and other quantities. If you have papers about Strong gravitational constant please give me the references.

Sergey Fedosin

Jose P. Koshy replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 13:29 GMT

Dear Fedosin,

I am an independent researcher and have not published any papers..My theory being purely classical (denying both the QM and the relativity theories of Einstein) and with no institutional back up, it is difficult to find any journal willing to publish my work. However, my findings have been self-published in the book form titled "The reality of the physical world" now available at amazon.com. I am also planning to hoist a web site for providing information to anybody interested.

In my theory, the nucleus is made up of electron-positron pairs (held together by alternate gravitational and electrostatic bonds) with lone positrons distributed symmetrically (similar to electron distribution outside) among them. The force available to an electron/positron is finite and the whole force is used to form electron-positron chains. So only the force available to to the lone positrons is available to the nucleus for outside interactions.The electrostatic and gravitational forces of electron are taken to be equal, and the strong constant can be got from this. In a hydrogen atom, the gravitational force between the nucleus and the electron is calculated using the same constant, and it is proposed that the spin energy of electron (actual spinning motion) is balanced by gravity and its kinetic energy is balanced by electrostatic force. As there are three independent forces (including the inertial force due to the motion of electron), the atom is spatially stable.

You wrote: “analogy (is inapplicable) for deducing of quantity Mvc( 1-u/c) since speed v is measured in the Earth reference frame and speed of the Earth u - in the Sun reference frame, i.e by different observers”.

The reference frame interpretation is incorrect. It is in fact a gross misinterpretation of the experimental data (see below) which Lorentz used in discerning the Lorentz transformation. The reference frame interpretation is a fantasy and introduces a fantastic illusion into science to create a makeshift working hypothesis to overcome the problem Lorentz faced as stated below.

I refer you to Lorentz 1904 paper, in which he iterated the data of Kaufman’s experiments on fast moving electrons (on Earth!!), and by trial and error he discerned the EMPIRICAL EQUATION which we now know as the “Lorentz transformation”. If you read the opening lines of Lorentz’ paper, you will find that the “observer on earth” that is data obtained for the motion of a particle (which was expected to move at velocity v) with respect to the lab frame contains a term involving Earth’s motion of velocity u.

Lorentz wrote in the burning problem he faced in the opening paragraph: “The problem of determining the influence exerted on electric and optical phenomena ….. IN VIRTUE OF THE EARTH’S ANNUAL MOTION ….” (p. 11)

Then in art 2. The experiments (Rayleigh and Brace, Trounton and Noble) of which I have spoken are not the only reason for which a new examination of the PROBLEMS CONNECTED WITH THE MOTION OF THE EARTH is desirable.(p.12)

The problem was just like the background temperature field (of temp T2) in the hierarchy influence the heat (S1T1) generated within it, by usurping a fraction of it, the background “velocity field” of velocity u, was found to influence the energy Mvc by usurping the fraction.

But Lorentz problem was: It “admits a simple solution, so long as only ….the first power of of the ratio between the velocity of translation (of Earth) u and the velocity of light” is taken into account.

So he means that if the term is Mv( 1-u/c) the solution to the problem is simple. But it is Mv(1-u/c)/(1 – u2/c2) the solution becomes difficult.

“Cases in which quantities of the second order, i.e. of the order u2/c2 may be perceptible, present more difficulties”.

This difficulty was overcome in SRT by merely postulating that time t changes to t’ = t(1- xu/c2)/(1-u2/c2)1/2. If this contention has any validity, then this equation should have been verified by experiment. Can you tell me at least one experiment which has verified the above equation? If this is not verified, then the two reference frame hypothesis falls.

The question I asked you is that has there been even a single experiment which has confirmed, that when x’ = gamma(x –ut) the corresponding time is

t’ = gamma(1- ux/c2)t?

And your answer: See the Ives-Stilwell experiment . This concerns time dilation equation (1) (below).

YOU ARE MAKING THE SAME GRAVE ERROR THAT GEORGE ELLIS DID JUST TWO DAYS BACK. YOU ARE CONFUSING BETWEEN THE SO-CALLED TIME DILATION EQUATION (1) AND LORENTZ TIME TRANSFORMATION EQUATION (2)

t’ = t/(1 – v2/c2)1/2 --------------------(1)

t’ = gamma(1- ux/c2)t ----------(2)

Just like you referring me to Ives-Stilwell Experiment by confusing equation (1) for equation (2), George Ellis also made the same error by referring to another group of experiments. He wrote: “all those collider experiments at places like SLAC and CERN verify it millions of times over each time they do a run”.

My reply was: In those “millions of times” of verifications, what was verified was

a) that displacement is given by x’ = gamma(x –ut) where U IS THE VELOCITY OF ORBIT OF THE EARTH and gamma determined by u. Hence the gamma-factor (for all experiments conducted on earth) is a constant. Gamma = 1.000000005.

b) And in the experiments to verify the decay time of a muon at CERN it confirmed the ‘time dilation equation’ t’ = t/(1 – v2/c2)1/2. In this v is the velocity of the particle in the gamma-factor. In this equation gamma is a variable. In the CERN experiment gamma v = 0.99c and gamma = 7.088, and when moving in a cosmic ray (as in Feynman example below, v = 0.9c and gamma = 2,294.

To quote from Feynman: . For example, before we have any idea at all about what makes the meson disintegrate, we can still predict that when it is moving at nine-tenths of the speed of light the apparent time that it lasts is (2.2x10-6)/ sq rt [ 1- (9/10) squared] sec; and that our prediction works …” (Vol I Ch 15 – 7).

FOR SRT TO BE CORRECT ON ITS FUNDAMENTAL CONTENTION OF THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATIONS, (see Einstein’s statement below) WHEN THE MUON DECAYS AFTER MOVING THROUGH A DISPLACEMENT GIVEN BY x’ = gamma(x –ut) THE CORRESPONDING TIME HAS TO BE GIVEN BY (2)

t’ = gamma(1- ux/c2)t. -------(2)

But this time is given by (1).

When I framed the question that way:

George Ellis HONESTLY CONCEDED. “YES I AGREE THAT THAT SPECIFIC EQUATION (2) PER SE HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BUT TIME DILATION (i.e equation 1) HAS, WHICH IS ITS CORE ELEMENT”.

So Sergey, here is the fundamental contention of SRT in Einstein’s own words: :.. “The insight which is fundamental for special theory of relativity is this: The assumptions 1)[constancy of the velocity of light] and 2) [principle of relativity] are compatible if relations of a new type (‘Lorentz transformation’) are postulated for the conversion of co-ordinates and the time.”(Autobiography, p. 55).

I WILL ASK THE SAME QUESTION AGAIN FROM YOU AS WELL. CAN YOU GIVE EVEN ONE EXPERIMENT THAT HAS CONFIRMED THE EQUATION

Eq. (1) and (2) are Lorentz transformations from base inertial reference frame K to moving inertial reference frame K`. It is a correspondence of coordinate x and time t when K` moving in K along of axis OX with the speed u. How we can understand that speed of light c is constant in all inertial systems? This question is well...

Eq. (1) and (2) are Lorentz transformations from base inertial reference frame K to moving inertial reference frame K`. It is a correspondence of coordinate x and time t when K` moving in K along of axis OX with the speed u. How we can understand that speed of light c is constant in all inertial systems? This question is well seen in Extended special theory of relativity . It is shown that constancy of speed of light in all inertial systems may be a consequence of constancy of speed of light in isotropic reference frame where the speed is the same in all direction and may be connected with isotropy of fluxes of gravitons. Another reason is procedure of space-time measurement in special relativity which uses two-way propagation of waves. With such procedure averaging of speed of light take place giving the value of c. But real speed in a direction may be not c. If we begin from the electrodynamics and from the Lienard-Wiechert potential then we arrive to Eq. (1) and (2) if we want connect reference frame K and K`. Then with Lorentz transformations Maxwell equations will have the same form in all inertial systems. Also constancy of speed of light is necessary for the same form of electromagnetic wave equation in all inertial systems. So Lorentz transformations are in full agreement with the constancy of equations of electrodynamics for inertial systems. Also I want say that Eq. (1) and (2) is connected with each other by symmetry. If we take t in Eq. (2) and use it in Eq. (1) we find reverse Lorentz transformation for x:

If we take x in Eq. (1) and use it in Eq. (2) we find reverse Lorentz transformation for t:

In practice it is possible to find only increments of coordinate dx and time dt in experiments so we have for u = constant:

You raises various interesting points in your Essay, hence I am going to give you an high score, although I disagree with you on a fundamental issue.

Not only general relativity, but also ALL the metric theory of gravity lack the stress-energy tensor of the gravitational field. In any case, this is NOT a fundamental drawback, indeed it is a fundamental beauty geometric characteristic of this kind of theories. In fact, the stress-energy tensor of the gravitational field CANNOT exist for Einstein Equivalence Principle. As we can ALWAYS choice a reference frame, the free falling one, in which all the gravitational fields, and hence their energies, are null. In other words, the gravitational energy CANNOT be localized. I suggest you to carefully read paragraph 20.4 at page 466 of the book "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, where this issue is carefully examined and explained. I recall that, today, Einstein Equivalence Principle is tested at a level 10^-13.

I agree with you that general relativity (GR) is perfect theory which give us exact results. But the problem with GR is connected with the methodology of physics itself and with the fundamentals of the theory. To make the situation more clear let take the next example. Suppose we have a steady flow of an incompressible liquid with a constant flow rate through the tube which...

I agree with you that general relativity (GR) is perfect theory which give us exact results. But the problem with GR is connected with the methodology of physics itself and with the fundamentals of the theory. To make the situation more clear let take the next example. Suppose we have a steady flow of an incompressible liquid with a constant flow rate through the tube which has a variable cross-section S, in the absence of gravitational forces. If

is the density of the liquid, V is the average speed of the flow, then the formula for the mass flux is:

When the section S is changing the speed V of the liquid and the density of the kinetic energy Ek in this section is changed:

In this case the density of the kinetic energy is inextricably linked with the geometry, and we can write the law of conservation of energy density

where

is a geometric function of the cross section S, which in general can arbitrarily depend on external conditions affecting S. On the other hand, we can do not use the geometry, and consider the potential energy of the liquid in the form of pressure P, then the sum of the kinetic and the potential energy will be saved regardless of S:

This shows that the problem with pseudotensor energy field arises in general relativity because of the fact that there the role of energy is performed by geometric quantities, and the gravitational field itself is reduced to the metric field and the curvature of spacetime. Of course, gravity changes the movement and energy of photons, which are used for the spacetime measurements. Hence the conclusion that the metric tensor in the presence of gravity changes its form relative to the metric of Minkowski space in the special theory of relativity. Therefore, such a change in GR metrics associated with gravity so as to satisfy the principle of equivalence. But then in GR energy-momentum tensor of the gravitational field disappear, and the field itself is not a real physical field but the geometrical object. Hence, there are paradoxes. For example in GR contribution to the gravitational field can make any other field, but the gravitational field itself do not make similar in the form of contributions in other fields. Then, why the gravitational field has such unique status? Because of the geometrization of the field in general relativity, we may never know exactly what causes spacetime to curve near the masses? And what is the maximum extent of this spacetime distortion? And where is the evidence that the degree of curvature is able to achieve the status of a black hole? Some of these problems are solved in the Covariant theory of gravitation. In this theory, gravitation exists as a fundamental physical field and has its own energy-momentum tensor like the electromagnetic field. That's gravitational field affects the movement and energy of photons or other test particles, and thus changes the spacetime metric, found by these photons and particles. The role of geometry is reduced only to a change in the metric by gravitation. At the same time as the physical mechanism of gravitation provides a mechanism in the Le Sage theory of gravitation, i.e. gravitation is a consequence of the fluxes of gravitons. And we can find density of energy of gravitons fluxes (http://vixra.org/abs/1209.0076).

Your paper offers a model of the structure of elementary particles within a nested cosmological concept. There were a lot of interesting ideas in there and clearly you have stimulated a significant amount of discussion and debate.

I found the reference to your book in internet: Jose P. Koshy (2010), The Reality of the Physical World. The Ultimate Theory in Physics , 290 pages. As I understand in the book is your value of strong gravitational constant which is equal to 2.78x10^32 in SI units since you determined it with the help of two electrons. In my opinion we must use forces between proton and electron. In hydrogen atom there are four forces influence the electron which is there in the form of disk cloud: Two forces of attraction, one is the proton strong gravitation, another is the electric force between proton and electron; two forces of repulsion, one is the electric force of charged substance of electron (all parts of electron repel each other), the other is centrifugal force. All the forces approximately equal to each other. Then from the equality of the electric and gravitational forces strong gravitational constant is 1.514 x10^29. Your value 2.78x10^32 is more in 1836 times that is relation of proton mass to electron mass.You can see also the idea of dynamical conception of the electron spin .

Sergey Fedosin

Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 16:48 GMT

Dear Sergei,

I have been studying the references that you gave me in my FQXi forum and I find they fascinating. I am still studying LITG, but it seems to be some kind of gravitomagnetic approximation to the field theory of Gravity (FTG).

LITG uses scalar and vector potentials, whereas FTG includes a tensor potential as well because the source of the gravitational field in FTG is the generalized stress-energy tensor \Theta^{\mu\nu} instead of a four-current as in LITG. Similar remarks about the expression for the gravitational force in each approach.

The reference on Strong gravitation does not give the Lagrangian. Is the LITG Lagrangian used in Strong gravity after substituting the gravitational constant by \Gamma?

Let me add that the "4/3 problem" is solved for electromagnetism in

Action-at-a-distance as a full-value solution of Maxwell equations: The basis and application of the separated-potentials method 1996: Phys. Rev. E 53(5), 5373–5381.

Lorentz-invariant theory of gravitation (LITG) may be used only in weak field approximation and for simple version of quantum gravity. Yes, in the LITG Lagrangian used in Strong gravity after substituting the gravitational constant by \Gamma. In common case instead of LITG must be used Covariant theory of gravitation (CTG). The CTG has Lagrangian where contribution of gravitational and electromagnetic fields has similar form including field tensors. Thanks for the references. By the way what does mean V` in the equation (1) of your paper `Modified Newtonian Dynamics and Dark Matter from a Generalized Gravitational Theory` at viXra.org ? Is it the velocity of massive source m` ? I do not found there decision of 4/3 problem. As it is known the 4/3 problem is difference of mass-energy of field in energy and in momentum of field of a body in motion.

Sergey Fedosin

Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 09:34 GMT

Dear Sergey,

Thank you for the references and information.

The reference to CTG that you give reads: "According to the axioms of CTG the source of the gravitational field is the mass 4-current J^i , and the field itself is characterized by the 4-potential". This confirms my previous post on that this is an approximation to the field theory of gravity mentioned in my essay. In FTG, the source of the gravitational potential is the generalized stress-energy tensor \Theta^ab. In a first approximation \Theta^ab --> T^ab, applying an additional gravitomagnetic approximation, T^ab --> T^0i = cJ^i; T^ji = 0, we recover the field equations for the 4-potential.

If Strong gravity is obtained by substituting the gravitational constant. How does the resulting Lagrangian reproduce the kinetic term of the QCD Lagrangian? What part is associated to the gauge invariant gluonic field strength tensor?

Yes, v' is the velocity of the source. The solution to the 4/3 problem of electromagnetism is given in the Phys.Rev.E paper cited above. The paper "Modified Newtonian Dynamics and Dark Matter from a Generalized Gravitational Theory" only applies the equation of motion (with the new gravitational potentials that correspond to the new electromagnetic potentials in Phys.Rev.E) to astrophysical phenomena, showing that dark matter is unneeded. Repeating the same analysis in the Phys.Rev.E we can eliminate the 4/3 problem from gravitational fields as well.

Between electromagnetic Lagrangian and QCD Lagrangian there is a correspondence. The same is for gravitational Lagrangian of Covariant theory of gravitation (CTG). It may be converted to QCD Lagrangian in view of Strong gravitation. From this the gravitational model of strong interaction may be built.

Much delighted of your work on, Scale Dimension described in the theory of, Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter.

To describe an infinite universe with finite expressions for quantization, we propose a holarchial clustering of the matters of universe, that seems to have some correlations with the Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter, though there are specific differences between these two scenarios; in that your work is on the particle nature of matter whereas this work ascribes matter as eigen-rotational string continuum with the emergence of three dimensional structures.

At the link http://www.clustermatteruniverse.net/description/hierarchy I found the geometrical picture of Universe hierarchy in the form of a cluster-matter of embedded holarchial clusters of randomly distributed heterogeneous-matters in triplets. And the minimal clustering algorithm applied on this model has been derived from a previous work on Quantum clustering and computing of information. I suppose you must now to connect your model to the real Universe hierarchy and compare them in details.

Sergey Fedosin

Daniel L Burnstein wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 00:28 GMT

Can you give examples of predictions that are original to your theory and are falsifiable?

The Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter is some thousands years old and I am a contributor to it. In the theory evolution of matter and field quanta at lower levels of matter is the base for evolution at high levels of matter. The main patterns of evolution are similar at all levels of matter. The wave quanta and relativistic particles are born by compact objects such as nucleons and neutron stars and fill all the space. These wave quanta and relativistic particles then play the role of gravitons and form objects at high levels of matter. So we find causality in structure and evolution of Universe. With the help of coefficients of similarity we can predict properties of small particles and great objects which we can not see directly. The theory gives us receipt how may particles be constructed and we give models of nucleons, electron, quarks and so on.

The ether in the theory exists and composed of gravitons fluxes, so we can find isotropic reference frame in every point of universe free of matter. In isotropic reference frame the speed of light and speed of gravitons is the same and do not depend on direction. Near the masses isotropy is broken and the force of gravitation appeared. Also we can understand force of inertia as the action of gravitons fluxes during of change of motion state. From here strong gravitation at the level of particles, and covariant theory of gravitation at the star-planet level are introduced. In covariant theory of gravitation the force of gravitation is a real physical force. For comparison in general relativity the force of gravitation is calculated too but has no physical explanation. More about it see my essay.

Sergey Fedosin

Daniel L Burnstein replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 05:27 GMT

Hi Sergey,

I reread your answer and the materials you are refer too, but I haven't found a single prediction.

Any number of models can explain what we already know. The one and only test of the possible validity of a theory is its capacity to make new predictions that are original to it.

A physics theory must do three things. Describe, explain and predict.

I know you explain there is no space to list all the predictions of your theory. That's fine. But I'm sure there's space here enough to make one or two original predictions.

By predictions I mean something that can be experimentally verified or observed.

The UP is interpreted to say that virtual particles can appear by borrowing the energy to exist from the vacuum, for a time inversely proportional to their energy. From the UP it is but a small step to a Self-Creating Universe (SCU) where real particles can be thought of as virtual particles which by alternately borrowing and lending each other the energy to exist, force each other to reappear again and again after every disappearance, at about the same place. The smaller their distance, the higher the frequency they exchange energy at, the higher their energy is.

If in such universe particles have to create themselves, each other, then particle and particle properties must be as much the product as the source of their interactions. As in this view particles express and preserve each other's mass by continuously exchanging energy, the origin of mass is obvious, as is the equality of inertial and gravitational mass. A SCU therefore has no use for Higgs particles, string theory, nor does it need a big bang, a cosmic inflation and dark energy to explain observations. To me the theory of ''infinite hierarchical nesting of matter'' doesn't make much sense as observations which are puzzling in the present paradigm are self-evident in a SCU. For a more extensive discussion than I was able to summarize in my essay, see my website (www.quantumgravity.nl) study. I wonder, by the way, whether, having read my essay, you agree that the 'speed' of light c doesn't refer so much to a (finite) velocity of light but rather to a property of spacetime itself, which is something else entirely?

It is known that virtual particles are quasiparticles which were necessary to explain some properties of vacuum in the case when we do not know the real structure of vacuum. Also for the virtual particles the principle of uncertainty is applied and so on from quantum mechanics, including particle - antiparticle creation. In the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter the real reasons for phenomena are searched first of all on the base of classical physics and classical models with addition of relativity where it is necessary. The equality of inertial and gravitational mass is a consequence of calibrating of mass units on one hand, and the consequence of the fact that real reason for both mass are fluxes of gravitons passing through bodies. The speed of light is a property of fluxes of gravitons since photons are the waves of the fluxes of gravitons. I found the portal www.quantumgravity.nl , and there is the next: universe which creates itself out of nothing, without any outside intervention. Does it mean that such universe has a boundary or surface in space as a limit for internal observer? Is the universe finite or infinite?

Sergey Fedosin

Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 04:01 GMT

Dear Sergey,

A Self-Creating Universe (SCU) doesn't exist as a whole, as 'seen' from without, so to say, so we cannot even ask, from the outside, whether it has a border.

According to the uncertainty principle, a particle of an infinitesimal energy has an infinite lifetime: as its position in space and hence in time is completely indefinite as long as its energy is infinitesimal, we...

A Self-Creating Universe (SCU) doesn't exist as a whole, as 'seen' from without, so to say, so we cannot even ask, from the outside, whether it has a border.

According to the uncertainty principle, a particle of an infinitesimal energy has an infinite lifetime: as its position in space and hence in time is completely indefinite as long as its energy is infinitesimal, we can say that it always has existed and always will exist, though as the effects of its existence then are infinitesimal, we can as well say that it doesn't really exist. If in a SCU the mass of particles is as much the product as the source of the force between them so is a relative quantity, varying depending on their distance and motion, and they evolve in a trial-and-error process to an ever-increasing energy (which they do by contracting), but start out with an infinitesimal energy, then they have no sharp birth date so to speak, so their universe, their interaction horizon has no sharp border either.

If the mass of the objects within its universe also depends on the mass of the observing particle, the force it feels from and exerts upon such objects, then according to the particle, its universe starts to exist as it starts to exist itself, that is, as it starts to interact.

So whereas in a Big Bang Universe all particles have been created at the same time, in a SCU particles keep creating each other everywhere, always, so while a BBU has a beginning as a whole and hence a border, a SCU, as seen from within, has no border which is the same for all observers: a SCU looks, is different to different observers.

As any particle is at the center of its own interaction horizon, its own universe, two particles don't live in the exact same universe unless they are ate the exact same spacetime point: the farther they are apart, the less their universes overlap, the less what happens within the interaction horizon (which obviously has no sharp border) of one particle is related to what happens within the universe of the other.

This theory can only have the status of a belief, not objective knowledge, because it involves presumptions which are outwith our experience. In other words, logically, it could be a proper explanation of physical existence, but we cannot know.

A key concept seems to be the assertion that there is no form of elementary particle, ie...

This theory can only have the status of a belief, not objective knowledge, because it involves presumptions which are outwith our experience. In other words, logically, it could be a proper explanation of physical existence, but we cannot know.

A key concept seems to be the assertion that there is no form of elementary particle, ie substance is infinitely divisible. This is contradictory to the physical reality we experience, which has substance, occurs independently of us, and alters. So, by definition, as at any given point in time, there must be a definitive physically existent state in order that existence (as we know it) occurs, and then re-occurs differently. And we are trapped in that physical experience, only beliefs can postulate alternatives.

Now, what constitutes a physically existent state (ie reality) is the real question. And it is not the elementary substances, as such. That idea reveals a confusion between the physical substance of existence and what is its existent reality (manifestation). Think on this: take any elementary particle (forget what it is, etc), and just pose the question: as at any point in time what constitutes its reality (physically existent state)? The answer cannot be: ‘it’, because we know there is alteration. Say ‘it’ ‘spins’ (again forget all the concepts behind this), then what is its reality? Remember, it cannot be in more than one state at a time. Or put another way around, if one asserts its existent reality is more than ‘one degree of spin’ (which can be defined), then the question immediately arises, where is the ‘cut-off’ point, half a spin, a complete spin? There is no physically justifiable answer, every possibility except one involves change, and that means what is being referred is not a reality, but more than one.

So reality is a physically existent state, and that is probably associated with the state of the properties of whatever constitutes the elementary substances. Existence is analogous to a film, that is, if it could be completely differentiated, then the point at which no form of change occurred could be identified, and that is what exists, but only as at that point in time. There is no time in reality, timing is the quantification of the rate at which change to a reality occurs.

It seems the reality of any object as its existence may be understood only through its interaction with other objects or probe particles.

Sergey Fedosin

Paul Reed replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 07:58 GMT

Sergey

Yes. Knowledge of any given physically existent state (reality)is only potentially available to us via the consequence of an interaction (aka light, noise, vibration, etc-but these are also physically existent). With the evolution of sensory systems, these phenomena acquired the functional role of enabling sentient organisms to be aware of reality. That is, in the context of the sensory systems, they are representations of reality.

This introduces another layer of potential factors which can obscure what originally occurred (reality). But that is because the sensory systems are the only basis upon which we can know reality, not because they in any way cause it. The ultimate output being perception of reality, not reality. That, both in terms of what was received and what created that, occurs independently of the sensory systems. The problem is extricating objective knowledge of that.

I received notice on my essay's blog that you had rated my essay. I'll copy my reply here since you are not likely otherwise to ever see it:

---

Sergey,

Thanks for your notification, I guess. Not that it makes any real difference, since, unlike some others, I haven't been mass marketing my essay to the rest of the community, soliciting ratings (some even...

I received notice on my essay's blog that you had rated my essay. I'll copy my reply here since you are not likely otherwise to ever see it:

---

Sergey,

Thanks for your notification, I guess. Not that it makes any real difference, since, unlike some others, I haven't been mass marketing my essay to the rest of the community, soliciting ratings (some even hinting at Quid pro quo). As a result I could see that mine would not be in the top 35 essays as rated by the community.

However I should inform you that, with my background in information systems analysis, I find that my essay's position within the list ordered by community rating dropped precipitously following your rating notice. That indicates two conditions: my essay had not been previously rated by many members of the community and your rating was substantially lower than previous ratings.

Again, all this rating stuff is meaningless since my essay would not have ever been one of the finalists (unless perhaps I had very successfully promoted it with an intense marketing campaign). However, more important to me than knowing you rated my essay would be to better understand why you might have given it a low rating, presuming that your rating was based on some specific evaluations of my essay. With no animosity, I would be very interested in understanding your assessment of my essay. Please do explain further!

Sincerely, Jim

---

I have not rated your essay, but I must say that if I had done I would have given it a low rating, since it violates the principal intent of this essay contest. Please see FQXi ESSAY CONTEST: Introduction section II "EVALUATION CRITERIA" under "Relevant:"

"(Note: Successful and interesting essays will not use this topic as an opportunity to trot out their pet theories simply because those theories reject assumptions of some other or established theory. Rather, the challenge here is to create new and insightful questions or analysis about basic, often tacit, assumptions that can be questioned but often are not.)"

In the Contest ratings are possible from the members of FQXi community, authors of Essay and public ratings of others. It seems the more authors will rate then by the low of great number there would be more qualitative and objective values of ratings. What about as I rate I should say it is very subjective. Too many factors which influence the result: Is there important problems raised and what is their decision? Has the essay bad mistakes? And so on.

Sergey Fedosin

James T. Dwyer replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 18:54 GMT

Dear Sergey,

I fully understand why the position of my essay within the list ordered by community ratings was lowered so much with your low rating. Moreover, I see comments from other authors, even those whose essays are highly ranked, indicating that you have also rated them low.

Since your notification was a standard form for all authors, with no personal greeting and the mispelling of 'Good', one must wonder if you even had any objective cause fro rating essays low!

I would hope you'd extend the courtesy to all authors whose essays you rate to make specific comments about why you rated them as you did. That would also allow the authors the opportunity to respond to your issues - perhaps you misunderstood, since English is apparently not your native language.

You quite right, English is apparently not my native language. May be it is a reason why some of my posts are without of many words of personal greetings and of remarks such as `Good done` and so on. Instead of it I try to understand more about the essay of any author asking what is problematic or may be changed in view of other data. You ask me about my method of rating. It is really subjective method. I can say for example that some naïve essays have 1 in my rating and some have no at all. Also there are some essays which were not written due to of lack of time and I can not rate them. On the other hand for more objective picture it is necessary for everyone jury to have some experience for good rating results. Possibly I must correct my method but it takes a time. Thank for your advice to be more objective, I shall try.

So, I'd still be most interested in why you rated my essay low, so that I can understand what shortcoming it might have. I suspect that you may have categorically dismissed it as naive because I am not a physicist. However, you may notice if you read the comments posted that some professional physicists have ranked my essay highly. I refer to this only because this may point out some misunderstanding due to language comprehension, not because I have any need to win this contest.

For example, do you understand that I am identifying improper methods used to originally infer the existence of galactic dark matter, establishing its general acceptance within the astrophysical community? By invalidating the expectation that galaxies should rotate just like planetary systems (in conjunction with referenced studies that successfully describe galactic rotation without dark matter or MOND), any perceived requirement for galactic dark matter should be eliminated.

If you understand that objective, I think you should realize that this is not even inconsistent with you own grand theory. IMO, an essay should be rated based on whether or not it complies with the stated objectives of the competition and how well it achieves its intent. Invalidating the falsely perceived requirement for galactic dark matter addresses a fundamental issue in physics. I think I have provided a compelling argument to that end. Please extend to me the courtesy of explaining the shortcoming of my essay that caused you to rate it low, even if they are subjective.

I suppose that you had been constructed engine which do work without of oil at all. What is the principle of action of your engine?

Sergey Fedosin

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 04:00 GMT

DEAR Sergey G Fedosin and TO ALL THE AUTHORS AND READERS WAS INTEREST.

Today, I am finished reading all of the essays in this topic.

First of all, thanks again to FQXi and the donors has facilitated for us to have the opportunity get contribute to science.

Next, would like to express to other author by the thanks for the comments that you have contributed to give me, and sincere apologies to those of you that I do not have specific feedback for your essay.The reason that is because:

The placing for issues and measures to solve for the problems of your offer is completely different from mine, so I can not comment when we do not have the same views on one matter, the purpose is to avoid the discussion became conflict of ideologies,it is will not be able to solve the problem which we are interested.

The end, I hope that : we ( who want the human to put their faith in science) will have the same fear: to someday,every people told each other that:

You are quite right. Evolution of star is repetition of evolution of particles. So in the theory structure of star is the structure of particles with some addition because of difference of scale and mass. From here we find models of particles and forces.

Sergey Fedosin

Author Sergey G Fedosin replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 10:54 GMT

Dear James,

Just now I sent a letter to mail@fqxi.org :

Please remove all the ratings which I made in the FQXi Contest ! Firstly I did not know that ratings averaged in this Contest. Instead of it I supposed that ratings are summed. So all ratings which I gave to participants of the Contest are wrong. In the second why it is impossible to change rating at the page of anyone if my opinion changed?

I have responded to your comment under my essay but just had to make a mention here (reading your Bio) that we may have missed each other at Penn State by just a few of years. I was there as late as 1974 as a graduate student in the Mathematics Department but had many many good friends in the Physics Department at the time. A nice coincidence indeed. Those were the days … studying and living in Happy Valley!

Your essay is very interesting and raises many new ideas and questions. It will take several readings by me to fully appreciate all the important details you include in it, but some questions quickly pop in my mind. How does this Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter relate to entropy? And could each scale in the hierarchy be used as a frame of reference to the scale above it? And wont this hierarchy of scale ultimately terminate at the most fundamental level (empty space?), which defines “being in the Universe'? So at this level, all reference has to be self-reference? Wouldn't this then explain CSL through 'empty space' (ie ether) since this will require all measurement of the speed of propagation of light to be 'local' to the 'ether'?

Firstly, the entropy of stars is negative, and if the radius of star is little the entropy is more negative. Secondly we must take into account entropy of gravitational fields itself. Gravitons of low levels of matter carry negentropy to the high levels of matter. According to formula for entropy in the book Fizika i filosofiia podobiia ot preonov do metagalaktik,...

Firstly, the entropy of stars is negative, and if the radius of star is little the entropy is more negative. Secondly we must take into account entropy of gravitational fields itself. Gravitons of low levels of matter carry negentropy to the high levels of matter. According to formula for entropy in the book Fizika i filosofiia podobiia ot preonov do metagalaktik, entropy is proportional to ratio of ordered energy of system to thermal energy of the system. Tensor of entropy has negative components too (the book `The physical theories and infinite nesting of matter`, § 21). I suppose that each scale (level of matter) in the hierarchy may be used as a frame of reference to the scale levels above it and vice versa. For example our reference frame at the Earth can be used for atomic research. I do not agree with idea of the most fundamental level (empty space?). If great metagalaxies interact with each other from the point view of their observers (which so great as the metagalaxies) it seems the space is empty. But in reality in the space a lot of stars and other objects. Speed of propagation of light is real constant for all space direction only in the reference frame 'local' to the 'ether', i.e. in isotropic reference system. In other frames real speed of light is another. See: Marinov S (2007). New Measurement of the Earth's Absolute Velocity with the Help of the Coupled Shutters Experiment . Progress in Physics 1: 31-37. ; Stefan Marinov (1983). The interrupted 'rotating disc' experiment . Journal of Physics A 16: 1885-1888. doi:10.1088/0305-4470/16/9/013. Bibcode: 1983JPhA...16.1885M. ; Eugene I. Shtyrkov (2005). Observation of Ether Drift in Experiments with Geostationary Satellites. Proceedings of the NPA, Volume 2, pp. 201-205. Also speed of light is constant in inertial systems if all measurements are made with the help of two-way propagation of light signals.

Thanks for your response and references. A lingering curiosity I have with every theory – what in your theory determines “being in the Universe”? And don't you agree this is a fundamental question that every theory must answer? As this determines 'physical existence'. As compared to 'mathematical existence' which never needs to be 'real'.

I read with great interest your deep and insightful essays. You, as an independent researcher thought through anew vertical and horizontal world. Your findings once again confirm that, to overcome "troubles in physics" needs a new conceptual model of the world. Science, including fundamental physics is on the threshold of a new conceptual revolution. Especially important as search a single source, the meeting point of knowledge and faith. Especially interested in your research on the nature of ball lightning. I appreciated the essay their maximum high. Good luck in the contest FQXi! I hope you agree with me, FQXi implementing projects relevant for the Science!

Thank you for reading my essay, as I did yours. May I just concentrate on one point you make - that there is a strong gravitational constant at small scales G_small> G where G is the macroscopic constant measured on the earth's surface involving masses much larger than atomic particles.

In Section 2.9 of my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory upon which I based my fqxi essay, I speculated that at the scale of the universal lattice of nodes (ether nodes in my theory) G can be larger:

"Another explanation for the low value of G known today might is that relatively massive macroscopic systems are now typically used to measure G. A single node is immediately surrounded by just 12 other nodes in an FCC lattice. Currently a spherically homogeneous mass is assumed in deducing G from the measured gravitational forces between two spheres. The geometrical differences between the two models should be studied to calculate, measure or deduce the true value of G on the scale of two adjacent nodes.

Revising the value of G of would increase the value of the smallest distance assumed in nature, the Planck Length, 4.05096x10-35 m. which must equal do the distance between nodes in the lattice. This of course does not imply that do equals the present value of the Planck length."

I do have an aversion to equations, especially since retiring. If I understand, though, if a new rating is is made for an essay that is slightly lower than the existing average rating for that essay, the new average rating will be reduced. Is that correct?

There may be another consideration in the ranking of essays by rating: if an essay's rating was tied or very close to many other essays, even a slight reduction in rating could significantly reduce an essay's position withing the rating ordered list. In that case a single rating (even one that is not so 'bad') could produce a large change in the essay rankings.

Thanks very much for explaining. Once I began watching the rankings I noticed in particular that my essay repeatedly jumped up & down between ~50 & 100 in very wild and dramatic swings. It's now settled down to something >100. Oh well, I never hoped to be a finalist anyway and don't have any professional aspirations.

Sergey, I sincerely apologize if I (and others) unfairly accused you of making excessively low ratings. Please consider that your 'rating announcement' postings called people's attention to whatever (dramatic) change was produced. At any rate, I'll now consider that you must have given me a fair and deserved rating.

I tried rate your essay repeatedly but it is impossible. So I see that in this Contest I was tricked by the Contest system of rating. Firstly I did not know that ratings averaged in this Contest. Instead of it I supposed that ratings are summed. In the second why it is impossible to change rating at the page of anyone if my opinion changed? It is a pity but FQXi up to now do not answer my questions in 3 letters to them.

Please remove all the ratings which I made in the FQXi Contest ! Firstly I did not know that ratings averaged in this Contest. Instead of it I supposed that ratings are summed. So all ratings which I gave to participants of the Contest are wrong. In the second why it is impossible to change rating at the page of anyone if my opinion changed?

I suspect there's not much that FQXi could do to change things in this contest, unless they could possibly identify your ratings and retract them. Again, watching the rankings, I suspect there are others who did not really understand the effect their ratings would have. I'll see what I can suggest to the administrator. I imagine they (I think it's more like 'he') are quite busy at this time - perhaps they'll respond soon. Thanks very much for you efforts in this regard!

There are guys who have written very nice words prasing other peoples essays, and hinted at deals (mutual high scores) "I scratch your back and you scratch mine". Then there are Community members who have access tothe FQXi main forum where their essays are highlighted. These two groups have not only have high averages a, they have high aggregates A and high number of ratings N. So occasional low rating (say 2 points) has only a very marginal effect of their average. But for those who have left things open for impartial rating, and who have a low number N, a low increment (say 2) to the aggregate has disastrous results.

A/N = a

(A + 2)/(N +1) = a' a' becomes very much lower than a.

I had already challenged an unscupulous canvasser of high scores and in retailiation my position had falllen significantly (just two days back)from about 120th to 160th. Now after your rating it went down about another 40 positions.

By your rating it is those who have already in a position of unfair advantage that gained. These are 'unintended consequences'. I know you did not mean them.

I think that all the problems with ratings have origins in FQXi itself. Why at the site of FQXi we can not find information about the method of rating? Some of authors of essays think that there is absolute method when all points are counted, but they are mistaken. Since here is another method of relative score when all points divided to number of peoples who made rating. In this case the rating not is more then 10. The absence of information at the FQXi site about the method of rating do it possible when some group of people vote much for itself and less for other. It is wonderful why such situation conserve at FQXi for some years already.

My main concern about the ratings is the apparent subjectivity due to a lack of clear and objective criteria for the ratings as expressed in my posting (below) under my paper --“ From Absurd to Elegant Universe”.

-----------------------

Dear Sergey:

Thanks for your detailed explanation about the ratings calculations.

My main concern is that ratings lack any objective criteria for evaluation and hence are highly biased towards the current mainstream thinking. Such subjectivity would not help the physics community to progress physics towards identifying the critical missing physics, end the current deadlock, and achieving the final universal theory. I have earlier expressed the “lack of objectivity” concerns to FQXi management as described below:

--- --------- ----------------------

SUBJECT: Objective Criteria for Evaluation & Ratings of FQXi Essays

“Questioning the Foundations - Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?” forum provides a great opportunity to advance the state of physics/cosmology marred by irresolvable paradoxes and inconsistencies. However, in order to maximize the benefit of this valuable forum and contest, we must first define benchmark criteria to determine what is fundamental or basic. Without a uniform and consistent bench mark criteria, no definitive determination of the correctness or wrongness of an assumption can be made.

The challenge faced by any judge or community evaluator of the essays is what objective criteria to use to rate an essay. With so many wide ranging assumptions, physical concepts, phenomena, mathematical treatise, type of tests and validation schemes, rigor and depth of description, and impact as well as consequences of using the wrong/correct assumption etc., it is almost impossible to achieve a fair and consistent evaluation and rating of an essay. In the absence of well-defined evaluation criteria, the ratings and evaluations are expected to be highly subjective and biased towards the prevailing widespread mainstream thinking that has failed physics/cosmology in the first place as evidenced by the fact that 96% (dark energy and dark matter) of the universe remains unexplained by the most widely acclaimed mainstream theories today.

A quick look at the most highly rated papers by FQXi community, it is clear that both the level of interest as well as ratings is greatly biased towards the mainstream theories – QM and GR. There is hardly (with only minor exceptions) any consideration given to the missing fundamental physics that renders the addressed assumptions, questions, and answers irrelevant with regard to the ultimate universal physical reality. Without the proper identification and integration of the missing physics, tweaking or patching up the existing assumptions within the current theories may only be futile and wasted effort leading nowhere. A revolutionary out-of-the-box rather than an evolutionary fixer-upper or patch-up approach to physics/cosmology may be needed to avoid its current stigma and dead end conundrum.

The determination of “Which of our basic assumptions are wrong?” must also provide answers to some fundamental questions that remain unanswered on a consistent basis as of today:

1. Does the essay propose any New missing Physics or only evaluates the wrongness of assumptions within the current theories - QM and GR?

2. Are there credible evidence and arguments provided to prove the wrongness – why the assumption is wrong?

3a. Is there a corrected assumption proposed? and, 3b. mathematically formulated in a proposed New theory or within the framework of current theories – QM or GR?

4. Is the proposed approach or theory validated against the observed universe data?

5. Is the proposed approach or theory simple and efficient mathematical description that is demonstrated to be devoid of any singularities and known paradoxes?

6. Does the proposed approach or theory provide definite and consistent answers the following open questions to resolve the prevailing cosmic conundrum?

• Did the universe have a beginning – the Big Bang? Does it have an ending?

• What is the true nature of time and space? Is the universe expansion accelerating?

• Could the speed of light be exceeded? What is C? Do the universal constants vary with time?

• Are there parallel universes and multi-dimensions beyond ordinary three spaces and one time dimension?

• Is uncertainty or randomness the fundamental property of the universe?

• What is the photon mass?

• Why the cosmological constant is so small as compared to that calculated by quantum mechanics?

• Is there non-locality in the universe?

• What is quantum gravity? Does quantum gravity have an absolute time?

• What governs the quantum versus classic behavior and the inner workings of quantum mechanics?

• What is the ultimate universal reality? Is it digital or analog or else?

• What is the role of consciousness or free will in the universe? How could this be addressed in scientific theories?

In summary, to enhance the benefit of this forum to the real progress in science, only a wholesome and integrated scientific approach that addresses a set of comprehensive and holistic objective criteria must be screened and presented as the top rated papers or essays.

I appreciate your opinion about FQSi as opportunity to advance the modern state of physics/cosmology, and necessity for FQSi to focus not only at the problem of rating procedure which is not clear, but also take into account Objective Criteria for Evaluation & Ratings of FQXi Essays. I am sure that your Objective Criteria may be useful for FQSi to change their policy. The next step is to pass this information to FQSi. At the moment their e-mails do not work.

Sergey Fedosin

Author Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 19:07 GMT

Here is the opinion of Constantinos Ragazas at his page http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1406:

Sergey,

Thanks for pointing this out. And I thought it was my controversial topic! The math makes sense. And so does your critic of fqxi rules for selecting the final 35. As I already mentioned to Branden Foster, the number of finalists should be a percentage of the total number of essays submitted. And not a fixed number And there should probably be some broad categories for selecting a greater variety of topics, professional and non-professional, in the final group. Too much emphasis currently is given by the community to the more 'standard theories' with more extreme and exotic extensions of these. But this only gets us deeper in the rabbit's hole of unreality we are in. Raising such questions as my essay and others do, the 'professional physicists' of course would adversely react to what they just don't want to think.

I have no illusions about winning a prize! But just wanted to draw greater attention to the many results and ideas in my papers. Which aim to 'make sense' of physics. `Shut up and calculate` is not acceptable to me. Nor it should be to any other intellectually honest thinker.

Best,

Constantinos

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 02:48 GMT

Pleased to trust in the wisdom of the judges.

"All decisions of the judges are final and the selection of Winners is at the sole and absolute discretion of FQXi."

For any object its being in the Universe and physical existence is the next: 1). The object was born in the Universe (which as a system is so infinite as it necessary to include all forms and entities which were the base for formation of the object in question). The physical object can not exist without of its previous evolution and development. 2). Any physical object (including wane quanta) consists of matter in the form of substance particles which belong to low levels of matter in comparison with the level of matter of the object. For example a galaxy consists of stars, their planets, moons, asteroids, dust, gas, particles and so on. 3). All the known forces of Universe influence any physical object through its compound particles. 4). We know two long-range fundamental forces in the Universe – gravitational and electromagnetic. These main forces form any object and stationary fields near the objects are observable. The quanta of these forces are waves in fluxes of gravitons. These waves may have rotational structure and carry rotational momentum, energy and linear momentum, for electromagnetic waves they have name photons. As the gravitons we suppose: the quanta of neutrino; photons; relativistic particles similar by their properties to cosmic rays having electric charge. All the gravitons for the strong gravitation and usual gravitation appeared at low levels of matter. When stars of visible universe will transform in neutron star and white dwarfs the radiation of the stars will the base for new gravitons which will influence such great objects which are much more bigger then the metagalaxies. 5). We suppose that strong interaction may be explained with the help of strong gravitation and Gravitational torsion field in gravitational model of strong interaction. And the weak interaction is simply transformation of substance inside of objects under action of fundamental fields, fluxes of the fields or result of collision with other objects.6). The objects are open systems; they interact with fundamental fields and other objects. The flux of negentropy comes to the objects from the low level of matter by means of fluxes of gravitons. At the same time entropy have rise in the processes of collision of objects with other matter objects. 7). We found the reason of redshift in existence of nuons, which have mass about mass of proton and are similar by their properties to white dwarfs: Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. And the other reason is possible - the mutual interaction of wave quanta and dissipation of their energy. In modern cosmology we find unphysical `explanation` of redshift through space expansion. But space is not a physical object and its expansion may help only calculate the process but cannot explain it. The same situation is in general relativity which can not explain the reason of curving of spacetime near objects. And the same we find in quantum chromodynamics which tries fit experiments with the help of about 20 unexplained parameters!??? It is not a physics it is mathematical work only. There are not real substantial models of objects; instead of it we see only mathematical theories based on ideas of symmetry of properties of particles; and based on supposed forces from interaction of particles with virtual the same particles??? (how it is possible to explain interaction of two protons through virtual pions which must appear between these protons?).

Sergey Fedosin

Anthony DiCarlo wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 14:46 GMT

As for why you broadcasted "your" concerns on community scoring on "my" essays posting I do not know, however, if this action was to draw attention to your essay .... here you go...

You discuss nesting, but, what you do not say is that it is "information" that is nested (information is all you will ever measure), and, I had given a classical 4D description of information in last years essay (an experiment you can do for yourself should you be more curious using time to comprehend real information rather then warning others of "unduly" scoring methods). Anyway, you will see that you do not require a 5th dimention to "scale" this information, you need a ruler and a clock to measure the radially dependent 4D size of the information space "relative" to another - a ratio of measures.

Also, you say:

"Another objection to the Big Bang model is the inability of appearing in the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter of singularities and black holes as objects, absorbing any substance and not giving anything out [3], [8], [9]."

This in itself appears very confusing. Apparently you have not heard who "won the war" implying that black holes DO emit radiation and particles, and, "do not" swallow information that is forever lost.

You speak of many different mass types, fields, etc., which adds a bunch of smoking mirrors to hide information and make things that were meant to be simple look rather complicated and seperate.

On a good note, I do see the benefits in scaling, however, you seperate out different scales and site relative "importances" for each and site where life occupies ... on your 6th scale. All the scales are alive and each scale comes with different time constants ..... it is all about scaled life that shares duel information....

thanks for your opinion. I do not believe in existence of virtual particles-antiparticles and in evaporation of black holes. Please take any proton which is not a black hole and have stable mass.

Sergey Fedosin

Joe Fisher wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 22:22 GMT

Dear Sergey Fedosin,

Thank you for taking the trouble to post your written concern about the scoring system being used to rate my essay in this august competition. I believe that one real Universe can only be existing in one real curved dimension located perpetually in one real here for the duration of one real now, once. In my real Universe there is only one real 1 of anything once. The Foundational Questions Institute saw fit to publish my essay uncut once. No realistic system of essay selection could be fairer than that.

A Self-Creating Universe (SCU) doesn't exist as a whole, as 'seen' from without, so to say, so we cannot even ask, from the outside, whether it has a border.

According to the uncertainty principle, a particle of an infinitesimal energy has an infinite lifetime: as its position in space and hence in time is completely indefinite as long as its energy is infinitesimal, we can say that it always has existed and always will exist, though as the effects of its existence then are infinitesimal, we can as well say that it doesn't really exist. If in a SCU the mass of particles is as much the product as the source of the force between them so is a relative quantity, varying depending on their distance and motion, and they evolve in a trial-and-error process to an ever-increasing energy (which they do by contracting), but start out with an infinitesimal energy, then they have no sharp birth date so to speak, so their universe, their interaction horizon has no sharp border either.

If the mass of the objects within its universe also depends on the mass of the observing particle, the force it feels from and exerts upon such objects, then according to the particle, its universe starts to exist as it starts to exist itself, that is, as it starts to interact.

So whereas in a Big Bang Universe all particles have been created at the same time, in a SCU particles keep creating each other everywhere, always, so while a BBU has a beginning as a whole and hence a border, a SCU, as seen from within, has no border which is the same for all observers: a SCU looks, is different to different observers.

As any particle is at the center of its own interaction horizon, its own universe, two particles don't live in the exact same universe unless they are ate the exact same spacetime point: the farther they are apart, the less their universes overlap, the less what happens within the interaction horizon (which obviously has no sharp border) of one particle is related to what happens within the universe of the other.

We can not use uncertainty principle for a particle of an infinitesimal energy so it has not an infinite lifetime as you think. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle connects Planck constant as a measure of action, and change of energy with the time of change of the energy. At the level of star is its Planck constant, see Similarity of matter levels , then there the uncertainty principle take place too. At every basic level of matter there is its own Planck constant. So for very small particles with an infinitesimal energy we have not an infinite lifetime. I am sure the Big Bang is a myth, so I do not agree that particles keep creating each other everywhere in the Big Bang.